Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I feel like T5 is a very handy change for a horde army. Orks needed something, FNP or +1wound would have been fiddly, 6++ wouldn't be useful really (and hey, some of them got that, too ).
"orkstodes", really? Forgive me but I must have overlooked the 3 wounds or the 2+ save...
With all the firepower and abundance of AP Orks will rarely use their saves, at least give them something.

As a custodes player, I am really feeling my army's 8th editionitis and am eager to see where they take the golden boys, but always with the fear that my faction is the one that gets the edition's miss

 Tyran wrote:
Your calcs seem consistent, t4->t5 is a 33% survivality increase vs s4.

Against s5 it is a 25% increase and vs s8-9 it is a 20% increase.

I actually dislike orks getting wounded on 3s vs str 8/9, but this is a common dislike for how the wound matrix works. It feels even worse on a horde though

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I'm just sad that there's so much bolterporn people can't believe that ork heads live off the body for a few hours, and that with their fungal soup type organs they can have a hole blown through em and be fine.

See that isn't toughness though--toughness would be taking the shot and it failing to cause significant damage. That's never been what orks do; they take damage quite readily but it takes an inhuman amount of it to bring them down. That's multiple wounds.

Says who? I don't mean to offend, but you really are just applying your head-canon to abstract numbers.
Orks, as a whole army, currently doesn't function as portrait in the fluff on the tabletop. If changing any of the numbers makes the army as a whole feel and play like orks again, what does it matter whether a model has a 4 or 5 in its statblock?
It's also worth noting that 2 wounds means that a boy is *guaranteed* to survive the first lasgun or bolter shot, while T5 is not. How is that not killing your suspension of disbelieve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I feel like T5 is a very handy change for a horde army. Orks needed something, FNP or +1wound would have been fiddly, 6++ wouldn't be useful really (and hey, some of them got that, too ).
"orkstodes", really? Forgive me but I must have overlooked the 3 wounds or the 2+ save...
With all the firepower and abundance of AP Orks will rarely use their saves, at least give them something.

As a custodes player, I am really feeling my army's 8th editionitis and am eager to see where they take the golden boys, but always with the fear that my faction is the one that gets the edition's miss

I really think that custodes are going to get an additional wound and maybe an extra toughness on top of that. Four wounds is a rather powerful place to be, since nothing but dedicated anti-tank weapons can kill you easily.

stratigo wrote:
...but always with the fear that my faction is the one that gets the edition's miss

No need for such pessimism. Remember: Neither CSM nor Tyranids have their books yet, so really you have nothing to fear.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
An extra wound wouldn't add save rolls.

Still more complicated (and more record keeping) than T5.

100% this. Having a 2W unit attacked by a unit that has weapons with variable damage is a pain in the rear.

Tracking wounds on mobs of 20+ Boyz would be a nightmare!

 Bonde wrote:
Tracking wounds on mobs of 20+ Boyz would be a nightmare!

Not really, you only ever have a single wounded model at a time.

It's just a case of expediency.

Ork resilience would be better represented via Feel No Pain, but that's tons more dice rolling. The next best way to show that is multiple wounds, but that's almost as time consuming.

T5 is an elegant solution that abstracts their resilience further than the other two, but will save everyone a lot of time in the long run. It was the best choice.

 AduroT wrote:

 Bonde wrote:
Tracking wounds on mobs of 20+ Boyz would be a nightmare!

Not really, you only ever have a single wounded model at a time.

"Uh, which one was the wounded guy?"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's just a case of expediency.

Ork resilience would be better represented via Feel No Pain, but that's tons more dice rolling. The next best way to show that is multiple wounds, but that's almost as time consuming.

T5 is an elegant solution that abstracts their resilience further than the other two, but will save everyone a lot of time in the long run. It was the best choice.

Yeah, I agree. 6+++ on units that can have 30 models is a pain, not to mention that there may also be the 6+ t-shirt save or 5++ KFF invuln to roll, and FNP is a roll in addition to one of those saves.

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's just a case of expediency.

Ork resilience would be better represented via Feel No Pain, but that's tons more dice rolling. The next best way to show that is multiple wounds, but that's almost as time consuming.

T5 is an elegant solution that abstracts their resilience further than the other two, but will save everyone a lot of time in the long run. It was the best choice.

Yeah, I agree. 6+++ on units that can have 30 models is a pain, not to mention that there may also be the 6+ t-shirt save or 5++ KFF invuln to roll, and FNP is a roll in addition to one of those saves.

One reason I have never liked facing dark eldars was precisely all that dice rolling with FNP. Even with fixed damage weapons vs 1W it still adds up extra steps. If multiple wounds are involved or random damage then...uuuugh.

And then people wonder why games take longer to play.

[nvm, probably more suited to the generic Codex thread]

i like T5 orks

 Nazrak wrote:
Something that's pretty apparent from the discussions around this are that various people have their own ideas of what Toughness and Wounds represent, when they're both really just abstract variables that can represent resilience in different ways. Personally, I don't think there's any way one can argue that one or the other is *objectively* the wrong stat to be using.

Particularly when it comes to Wounds, the W characteristic has always had something of a flexible "meaning", ranging from "this is a big, resilient thing" or "this guy arbitrarily has more wounds so you don't lose your heroes etc too fast, in-game"

On this I certainly agree, and I do not mean to frame my argument as anything other than one of subjective flavor. Which, looking back, I could have done better. Ultimately it's kind of the straw breaking the camel of my suspension of disbelief. I think it also seems worse for me personally because my narrative brain is still attempting mental gymnastics to get around AoS zombies


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
An extra wound wouldn't add save rolls.

Still more complicated (and more record keeping) than T5.

I guess? We deal with that from marines all the time though and it's never been considered an issue. Yeah less models, but the only time it actually matters is damage d3 weapons where they must be individually rolled in case of a 1. It just isn't that big a deal, negligible compared to the time spent on rolling h/w/s in the first place. FnP is actually adding a whole extra step to that (and then must be rolled individually in the case of multi damage weapons) and is a whole order of severity worse. But I do completely agree that a fnp would be too impractical to be worthwhile.

I think 2W with no save (well, a 7+) for basic boys would be more thematic and also save way more time than it would add. *sigh* but it is what it is. I think I would be more accepting if it wasn't piled on top of other crap like DG's resilience to small arms fire being represented by literally the exact opposite.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Meanwhile, Tyranid Warriors are T4 W3...

Which funny enough makes them tougher vs bolters than orks, tougher vs autocannons.

And of course they are still without codex. At least last time I checked tyranids haven't yet got 9e codex. It's pointless to compare 9e codexes to 8e codexes since GW decided to up the power scale to 11th with new codexes. Just be happy your book is later. Power creep ensures tyranids will stomp orks when they come up.

Not my book, and I could care less about winning. Ensuring that Tyranids will stomp Orks because their book will come out later ignores the evidence of earlier editions, and is not a good thing either: What's the point of winning of it wasn't in question in the first place?

Tyranid Warriors are mostly fine at their current point cost. 17 points for T4 W3 4+ is quite decent IMHO. My only real issue with them is that their upgrades are poorly balanced (no reason to take devourers when deathspitters are vastly superior, same with rending claws vs boneswords).

 Tyran wrote:
Tyranid Warriors are mostly fine at their current point cost. 17 points for T4 W3 4+ is quite decent IMHO. My only real issue with them is that their upgrades are poorly balanced (no reason to take devourers when deathspitters are vastly superior, same with rending claws vs boneswords).

As an avowed member of the Sad Old Git Brigade, I want Tyranid Warriors to be proper scary again.

Whilst never that hard to deal with, they need to be a thorny prospect. Something you could leave to Infantry weapons and Heavy Bolter equivalent weapons, but Killy enough that you were better off properly blatting them.

That’s my memory of them from 2nd Ed certainly. And I’d say it’s a gap they need to fill all the more urgently because Nids have seriously diversified since then (as in 2nd Ed, your biggest and nastiest critter was the Carnifex. Or Screamer Killer as it was).

Right now, at T4 they’re too handily dealt with by infantry level weapons to really be worth hitting with stronger weapons. And they’re simply not deadly and therefore scary enough to overly worry me as an opponent.

Yes there may be dusty memories and rose tinted glasses in this post. But I stand by it. They need to be an awkward middle ground. And I think T5 W3 (maybe 4?) might tickle that pickle.

I basically have nostalgia for the 'just wait for your codex update' statements at this point. It reminds me of hearing it during better times. Just as bull back then as it is now, but the field in which the gak lay was nicer.

I don't think Tyranid Warriors would be a problem at all if they weren't $65CAD for three vs $70CAD for ten Intercessors. I mean, maybe if Tyranid Warriors were 33 points each and you could just keeping recycling them onto the board or something interesting.

Replacing their terrible Instinctive Behaviour with a reversion to 2nd editions Tyranid Attack would be cool.

Further edit: This comes back to Orks needing to be able to get across the field in a big horde and still have a fighting chance to defeat an army equipped to shoot them all off the table. Leafblowers make for bad games, and so does only playing with 1/2-1/3 of the models you deployed after the first turn. It would be better if ten bodies were ten bodies, and the rules enabled them to do different things to represent their various proclivities and backgrounds, and did so along more than the lethality/survivability axis. Giving Orks T5 was something of an inevitability where that's the only change you can make (and we know they weren't going to revert to BS4+ to make them shootier).

I wish the game had progressive penalties to hit rolls based on range. But then I also wish tacking hit penalties back again so dense cover can do something other than enabling my opponent's heavy/assault weapons to move/run without penalty, render my venomthropes obsolete, and make hit debuffs only useful against melee. The problem was only ever that 6s didn't auto-hit but GW went in with a hammer instead of a scalpel. Now there is a very finite limit on how rebuffed shooting can be, so why not go all-in?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

stratigo wrote:
...but always with the fear that my faction is the one that gets the edition's miss

No need for such pessimism. Remember: Neither CSM nor Tyranids have their books yet, so really you have nothing to fear.

Last edition's misses were necrons and grey knights.

I think the guy who hated tyranids either isn't allowed to touch them any more or got over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's just a case of expediency.

Ork resilience would be better represented via Feel No Pain, but that's tons more dice rolling. The next best way to show that is multiple wounds, but that's almost as time consuming.

T5 is an elegant solution that abstracts their resilience further than the other two, but will save everyone a lot of time in the long run. It was the best choice.

Yeah, I agree. 6+++ on units that can have 30 models is a pain, not to mention that there may also be the 6+ t-shirt save or 5++ KFF invuln to roll, and FNP is a roll in addition to one of those saves.

I'm not entirely sure the painboy and KFF are gonna survive unchanged.

The painboy especially seems to be wierd if he can hand out mass FnP still since that kin of defeats the point of not just giving orks a FnP

 Jidmah wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Bonde wrote:
Tracking wounds on mobs of 20+ Boyz would be a nightmare!

Not really, you only ever have a single wounded model at a time.

"Uh, which one was the wounded guy?"

The one with the wound token next to him?

 AduroT wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Bonde wrote:
Tracking wounds on mobs of 20+ Boyz would be a nightmare!

Not really, you only ever have a single wounded model at a time.

"Uh, which one was the wounded guy?"

The one with the wound token next to him?

A normal boy in the back (not a nob or special weapon guy). It doesn't really matter which one.

Tracking wounds on a 2 wound 20+ model unit of boyz would be a pain once the enemy started firing D3 or D6 damage weaponry at it. I'd prefer the 1 wound T5 honestly.

cody.d. wrote:
Tracking wounds on a 2 wound 20+ model unit of boyz would be a pain once the enemy started firing D3 or D6 damage weaponry at it. I'd prefer the 1 wound T5 honestly.

While I do personally prefer the move to T5, tracking wounds has never been hard for 8th and 9th edition. Since you allocate to one model and once it dies you go to the next.

 Castozor wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Tracking wounds on a 2 wound 20+ model unit of boyz would be a pain once the enemy started firing D3 or D6 damage weaponry at it. I'd prefer the 1 wound T5 honestly.

While I do personally prefer the move to T5, tracking wounds has never been hard for 8th and 9th edition. Since you allocate to one model and once it dies you go to the next.

As an example, firing a battle cannon at a unit of boyz. After hitting and wounding he has to roll each damage roll separately to see if a boy is killed outright or not. Throw in a painboy and even more rolling just to keep pretty cheap, throwaway infantry alive. As apposed to with 1 wound. Cannon wounds, it kills.

 Castozor wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Tracking wounds on a 2 wound 20+ model unit of boyz would be a pain once the enemy started firing D3 or D6 damage weaponry at it. I'd prefer the 1 wound T5 honestly.

While I do personally prefer the move to T5, tracking wounds has never been hard for 8th and 9th edition. Since you allocate to one model and once it dies you go to the next.

Never faced d3 damage weapons before?

Especially with fnp to mix?

You roll to hit, you roll to wound, you roll save, you roll damage, you roll fnp. you determine did you die. With multi wounds and fnp you can't even fast roll damage and fnp but have to do those...one...by...one.

With flat multi damage at least then you can skip roll for damage but still...fnp is one by one 2/3/4/5/6 dice at a time.

With the changes, this makes an Ork Nob almost have Ogryn stats, but he has access to better wargear. Even with the recent points drops Ogryn are still 25 points each. I suspect Nobs will be going up in price.

I’m guessing this will also make things like Ork bikers and Warbosses T6? Maybe the Defkilla will become T7? I’d also be very interested in what (if any) stats increase they make to Deff Dreads if basic Orks are now tougher

The stat increases for bikes and vehicles are what I'm interested to see, yeah. T6 bikes? The same T as a buggy?

 AduroT wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Bonde wrote:
Tracking wounds on mobs of 20+ Boyz would be a nightmare!

Not really, you only ever have a single wounded model at a time.

"Uh, which one was the wounded guy?"

The one with the wound token next to him?

You clearly have never moved a unit of boyz.